lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.

I have an open challenge to anyone who can show an actual doom and gloom climate change prediction that came true or even just a photograph showing a rise in sea level. For all of the people who believe the way you do, not one has been able to, with a simple old and recent photograph, show any rise in the high water line, yet on my thread relating to this very topic, I have my own and other pictures showing no change on a fixed object.

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

our logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying.

If you're going to attempt to engage in a constructive discussion, then at least read what I write and understand it.

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

As an example.

You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.

Wrong. It means gravity is settled science. But there are many other variables that affect where the feather will land that can be modeled, but all the inputs have variability so the final outcome is a probability curve.

Just like the greenhouse effect is settled science. But its effect on Earth as CO2 increases can only be modeled.

You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying

This is called equivocating. This allows a safe space for plausible deniability. If you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.

f you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it.

Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

I've consistently posted that one can argue the validity of the models. Most open minded people who look at all of the agreement in data showing a warming Earth believe that the climate is changing, but like I said earlier--models are models. They are not facts.

Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.

Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.

The reason you think I missed something is because you don't understand the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because the predictive theory on its relationship to temperature didn't pan out. Therefore I simply go to the main point, the effect of human activity. The reason some of your comments are keepers is because of the bizare logic of admitting that the predictive theories might be flawed, even due to circumstances yet unknown (some consider it settled science), yet you still believe there is an actionable crisis.

The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?

You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?

Similar behavior by followers and similar behavior by those controlling the followers. It’s almost like they follow this model like the Bible. Don’t you dare question the contradictions, that is heracy.

The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you.

The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you

I'm not sure about the melting rate at the arctic, but the other two are correct. For now. The question is looking at the trends and models, what is going to happen in the future?

Saved by volcanoes! "If we have volcanic cooling, it does buy us a little bit of time. So does extra solar cooling," Folland told Haaretz. "It buys us a little bit of extra time to respond through mitigation or adaptation to global warming."

"Image result for june world temperaturewww.ncdc.noaa.gov June 2018 was warmer than average, though its temperature was similar to the June values for several recent years. The European-average anomaly is 0.9°C for June 2018; this compares with 1.4°C for June 1999, the warmest June on record."

So Last month was a half degree cooler than 1999. Except in Siberia. Siberia was 50 degrees warmer than average yesterday.

the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”), but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending. The United Nations loves it because it inspires fantasies of the UN growing up to be a world government, with real government powers of global taxation, spending and regulation, all “to save the planet.” Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to play the “useful idiots.” Moreover, many academic scientists are “progressives” themselves, and so favor sharp increases in government spending, taxes and regulation, because they are certain they know how to run your life better than you do.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/amp/

The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The
conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons,
anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the
housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play
it.115 pages, $12.50